Refs

Comments

Why do you say “yet again” given that your second link isn’t to a BBC page? I agree the graphic should be clearer that it’s talking about deaths from the earthquake/tsunami as a whole – note that it’s being used on several recent stories from the region, not just those talking about the reactor melt-throughs. Example:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13388370

[My second link is to me being wound up the first time. Ah, you don’t like the “yet”. Well, maybe -W]

“lying scum” (picture name) is way over the top. Anyone with a moments thought would clearly identify those numbers are for the earthquake disaster.
A lack of clarity yes, a poor job by the editor yes, but most definitely not a lie and not deserving of being called “lying scum”.

[That is why I toned down my headline. But I’ll quite happily support the appellation. They are lying, they do it so often and so casually that you almost stop noticing it -W]

I was not clear enough – by “out of (nature) control” I meant that the last point of global CO2 measurement was a bit higher than I would suggest – but NOAA will maybe correct that later – if not, if deserves explanation – drought, maybe wildfires?

[Ah, that makes more sense. Yes, I noticed that too. I looks a bit of an outlier; I’d wait for another few months of data before worrying -W]

“…In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant…”

It is very important to always draw a clear distinction between the disasters. Even in Japan many people are confused, and all over the world people think the nuclear thing is the problem. Fixing up the places devastated by the tsunami is one problem. The other is the potential electricity shortage that may compound the economic hit by slowing down industry (unlike the UK, which exports only TV programmes, Japan still makes lots of actual stuff you can hold which needs electricity to produce).

Well, no deaths, but hundreds of thousands of evacuated people have lost their houses, some also their industries, workers are struggling under hazardous conditions to contain the radiation, food has to be monitored in the whole country, it will take decades to clean that up… Surely nuclear power in Japan has not resulted as economic as expected. Ok, nuclear energy is a good choice, but I’d try to be less frivolous when talking about the accident and its consecuences ;-)

Indeed. The headline deliberately refers to the nuclear event alone and a cursory reading would give the impression that the 24,000 dead and missing were victims of a nuclear disaster. This is clearly their intent.

In fact they must know that direct nuclear deaths are zero and almost certainly that is the final total.

[Well, you nearly got to the end without trolling. But not quite. So I snipped the last. Please try harder, I can’t be bothered to keep doing this -W]